coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In September 1997 a building permit was issued to the applicant’s neighbour, which was amended on 6 October 1997. On 26 January 1998 the Budapest Administrative Office dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against these decisions.
6.  On 19 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Pest Central District Court challenging the administrative decisions. The administrative case-file was transferred to the District Court on 6 April 1998, which held a hearing on 16 October 1998.
7.  Meanwhile, an additional permit was issued to the neighbour on 23 June 1998 which was upheld by the Administrative Office on 16 November 1998. On 24 November 1998 the applicant filed an action against this decision and requested that the two cases be joined.
8.  On 10 December 1998 the District Court held a hearing and joined the two actions.
9.  On 26 January 1999 the case was transferred to the competent Budapest Regional Court. The latter held hearings on 12 May and 1 December 1999. On 28 February 2000 it appointed an expert architect. The expert submitted his opinion on 14 April 2000.
10.  On 11 May and 5 November 2001 hearings were held. On 16 May, 10 September, 6 and 19 December 2001 the applicant submitted further particulars of her claims; she also requested that a hearing scheduled for 3 September 2001 be postponed.
11.  On 14 January 2002 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decisions and ordered the authorities to re-examine the case.
12.  On 11 February 2002 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. After having been instructed to do so, the applicant re-introduced her appeal, this time countersigned by a lawyer, on 6 November 2002.
13.  On 31 March 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision.
14.  In 2002 the applicant brought an action in damages against the neighbour in question. On 27 August and 12 December 2002 the Budapest II/III District Court held hearings.
15.  The expert architect appointed in the case submitted her opinion in February 2003. Further hearings took place on 13 February, 17 April and 7 October 2003. After the applicant’s request to have it suspended pending the outcome of the above administrative litigation, the case appears to be still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the city of Bryanka-1, Ukraine.
5.  On 27 May 2002 the Bryanka City Court ordered the State Company “Shakhtoupravlinnya No. 17” to pay the applicant UAH 9,970.16[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 8 July 2002 the Shakhtarsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  On 25 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 18 June 2002 could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
8.  On 25 December 2003, 7 September and 29 December 2004, respectively, the full amount of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant in three instalments of UAH 1,195.74[2], 1,727.84[3] and 7,053.58[4].
9.  In November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bryanka City Court against the same company seeking the amendment of his retirement date and compensation for the failure to pay him the judgment debt of 27 May 2002.
10.  On 4 November 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 12 January 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 4 November 2004. The applicant’s appeal in cassation is still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk region.
5.  On 16 June 1999 and 11 April 2001 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 4,078[1] against the Novogrodovskaya Coal Mine (a State-owned entity, hereafter “the Coal Mine”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  In 2001 the applicant complained to the City Court about the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity. On 11 September 2001 the court rejected this complaint, stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the Bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgments, and that their non-enforcement was due to the Coal Mine’s lack of funds. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by the bankruptcy case pending against the Coal Mine before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration, which on 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 prohibited the Bailiffs’ Service from attaching and selling the Coal Mine’s assets.  On 19 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the City Court. On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.
7.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered a merger of the Coal Mine with several others to form the Selydivvugilia State Company.
8.  On 3 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the City Court for directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case. On 18 December 2003 the City Court ordered that the debtor be replaced by the Selydivvugilia State Company.
9.  On 21 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgments in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the city of Snizhne, Ukraine.
5.  On 12 June 2000 the Snizhne City Court ordered the State Holding Company “Torezantratsit” to pay the applicant UAH 3,448.60[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 26 June 2000 the Torezk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  On 2 March 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 12 June 2000 could not be executed due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor, and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor has been suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
8.  On 28 October and 22 December 2004, respectively, the full amount of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant in two instalments of UAH 2,679.70[2] and 768.90[3].
7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and resides in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
8.  The applicant has worked as an English teacher in a secondary school since 1984.
9.  On 23 March 1996 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a new wording for the Education Act that provided for, in particular, the payment of certain benefits to teachers.
10.  On 2 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk against the Leninsky District Department for Education, claiming entitlement to those benefits. The applicant maintained that he had more than 10 years’ of service and was thus entitled to a 20% increase in his salary as from 1 January 1997. However, the defendant had not paid him this increase. He further maintained that the defendant had not paid him annual bonuses for excellent work and recreation. The defendant stated that the claimed amounts could not be paid because the State budgets for 1997-1999 did not make any provision for such expenditures.
11.  On 5 October 1999 the court found in part for the applicant. The court rejected the applicant’s claim for an excellent work bonus as such a payment required an assessment of the applicant’s work which was outside the court’s competence. The court also rejected the applicant’s claim for unpaid benefits in 1997 and 1998 as being out of time, according to the law on employment disputes. The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for benefits after 1 June 1999 as the Secondary Education Act, adopted in May 1999, had suspended them. The court, however, awarded the applicant the claimed increase in salary for the period between 1 January and 1 June 1999.
12.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Donetsk Regional Court.
13.  On 4 November 1999 the regional court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The court noted, in particular, that the Secondary Education Act had entered into force on 23 June 1999; therefore the first instance court had erroneously overlooked the period between 1 and 23 June 1999.
14.  On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk ruled against the applicant. The court found that, under the transitional clauses of the Secondary Education Act, the provision entitling the applicant to benefits would only resume force on 1 September 2001. Thus, at the time of the examination of the claim, there was no legal basis for it.
15.  On 30 March 2000, the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. It observed that the claims of the applicant for the periods prior to the adoption of the Secondary Education Act could not be satisfied, since at the time of the consideration of the case the relevant provisions of the Education Act had been suspended by the Secondary Education Act. This decision was final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the city of Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine.
5.  On 22 August 2002 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Khmelnytskyi Regional Court of Appeal to pay the applicant UAH 9,565.17[1] in pension arrears (involving a special retired judges’ allowance). The court also ordered the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice to transfer to the Khmelnytskyi Regional Court of Appeal the amount of the award.
6.  On 31 January 2003 the Pecherskyi District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  On 15 December 2003 the judgment was enforced in full.
8.  On 27 December 2002 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant UAH 3,618.78[2] in similar pension arrears. The court held that the amount of the award should be seized from a specific account of the State Treasury.
9.  On 5 March 2003 the Pecherskyi District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 27 December 2002. On 16 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service submitted the writ of execution for the judgment to the State Treasury of Ukraine. On an unspecified date the State Treasury returned the writ of execution and informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgment could not be enforced because of the absence of relevant allocations from the State Budget.
10.  On 24 December 2004 the judgment of 27 December 2002 was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
5.  On 13 December 2000 the labour disputes commission (hereafter “the LDC”) ordered the “Zhovtnevy Rudnyk” coal mine (a State enterprise, hereafter “the ZRCM”) to pay the applicant UAH 29,875[1] in compensation for unpaid industrial disability benefits.
6.  On 13 March 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Donetsk (hereafter “the District Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 7,427.58[2] against the ZRCM in salary arrears.
7.  On 9 January and 9 April 2001 respectively, the Kuybyshevskiy District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) opened the enforcement proceedings concerning the above decisions.
8.  On 23 June 2001 the Deputy Head of the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the LDC decision of 13 December 2000 and the court judgment of 13 March 2001 could not be immediately executed in full due to the debtor’s lack of funds. However, on 22 March 2001 the applicant was paid UAH 388.88[3] of the benefits awarded by the LDC.
9.  On 19 April, 5 August and 6 December 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions of the court and the labour commission could not be enforced on account of the debtor’s lack of funds and the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State enterprises introduced by the 2001 Law.
10.  On 7 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the merger of several coal mines, including the ZRCM, into the Donetskvugillia State Company.
11.  On 1 September 2003, relying on the fact that the ZRCM’s had lost its status as an independent legal entity, the Bailiffs dealing with the applicant’s case terminated the enforcement proceedings. However, on 23 October 2003 the Head of the Bailiffs’ Service annulled this decision as ill-founded.
12.  On 20 and 28 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the District Court, seeking directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s enforcement cases. On 24 and 30 October 2003 the court ordered that the debtor in the cases be replaced by the Donetskvugillia State Company. On 13 November 2003 the enforcement case was transmitted to the Voroshylovske District Bailiffs’ Service.
13.  The amount awarded by the judgment of 13 March 2001 was paid to the applicant on 5 December 2003. The benefits awarded on 13 December 2000 were paid in two instalments on 3 and 29 December 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Łódź.
7.  On 21 November 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of receiving and selling stolen goods.
8.  On 22 November 1997 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand until 21 February 1998. The court referred to the strong probability of the applicant’s guilt and to the high risk of his hindering the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also emphasised that it was likely that the applicant, if released, would go into hiding.
9.  By a decision of 24 February 1998, the Łódź District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 21 September 1998. The court considered that the reasons for which the detention had been ordered continued to exist. The decision was served on the applicant on 25 February 1998.
10.  The applicant appealed, claiming that keeping him in custody between 21 February 1998 and 24 February 1998 had been unlawful since there had been no valid judicial decision authorising his detention.
11.  On 25 March 1998 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated. However, the court altered the decision of 24 February 1998 and prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 June 1998, finding that the case had not been complex and that the evidence against the applicant pointed to his guilt.
12.  In a letter of 28 April 1998, the Łódź District Court admitted its mistake and confirmed that there had been no valid judicial decision authorising the applicant’s detention on remand between 21 February 1998 and 24 February 1998. It added that this period would be deducted from any sentence of imprisonment eventually imposed on the applicant.
13.  On 5 June 1998 the Łódź District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kocaeli.
6.  On 14 December 1995 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to him on 22 November 1996.
7.  On 22 October 1996 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance.
8.  On 20 February 1998 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay the applicant 4,619,997,360 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 22 November 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the administration.
9.  On 22 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
10.  On 15 December 1998 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for the rectification of its decision.
11.  On 29 July 1999 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration paid the applicant the amount due together with interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Split.
5.  The applicant worked for the company K. (“the company”) for several years. By virtue of a 1985 court decision and the subsequent decision of the company in 1986, he was granted use of a privately owned flat. However, he was not able to move into the flat until 1 September 1989.
6.  On 15 December 1989 the applicant filed a civil action against the company and T.V. as the owner of the flat seeking damages for not having been able to move into the flat until 1989 and for having had to renovate it. Subsequently, T.V. filed a counterclaim seeking the applicant’s eviction from the flat and the payment of rent for the time he had spent in it.
7.  On 13 December 1995 the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) dismissed both the applicant’s claim and T.V.’s counterclaim.
8.  On appeal, on 28 August 1998 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case in so far as it involved the payment of rent by the applicant. At the same time, the County Court upheld the remainder of the first-instance judgment in its part concerning the applicant’s claim and T.V.’s claim for the applicant’s eviction, which thereby became final. T.V. filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) against that part of the County Court’s decision. On 21 March 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his appeal inadmissible, because the value of the subject matter in dispute did not reach the threshold prescribed by law.
9.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of the company, but maintained in his action against T.V. During the proceedings, also T.V. changed his counterclaim on several occasions. Subsequently, on 1 July 2003 the Split Municipal Court again dismissed the applicant’s action, accepting T.V.’s counterclaim for payment of rent by the applicant.
10.  On 15 May 2003 the applicant appealed against that decision.
11.  On 19 May 2003 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.
12.  On 23 October 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. It found that, at the time when the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint, the proceedings before the Split County Court had been pending for only four days and that therefore, on the basis of the existing case-law of the Constitutional Court, the conditions set out in section 63 § 1 of the Constitutional Act were not fulfilled.
13.  On 4 February 2005 the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment in its part concerning the order to pay to T.V. the rent. At the same time, the second-instance court remitted the case in its part concerning the exact amount of the rent due.
7.  The applicant, Mr Victor Baibarac, was born in 1931 and lives in Edineţ.
8.  In 1949 the Soviet authorities nationalised the property owned by his parents and deported his family to Siberia.
9.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of Soviet repression to claim compensation for their nationalised property.
10.  In 2002 the applicant brought an action against the Local Treasury Department in respect of the latter’s refusal to pay him compensation.
11.  On 27 September 2002 the Edineţ District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Local Treasury Department to pay him compensation of 40,000 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 3,010 euros (EUR) at the time).
12.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 September 2002. In a letter of 7 May 2003, the Ministry of Justice assured the applicant that everything possible was being done to enforce the decision, but that the Local Treasury Department did not have any money in its account.
13.  On 20 February 2004, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the judgment was enforced. The applicant wrote a receipt addressed to the head of the Edineţ Department of Execution of Judgments in which he confirmed that he had received the money in accordance with the judgment of 27 September 2002 and that he had no more claims against the debtor and against the Department of the Execution of Judgments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child.
6.  In 1998 the applicant brought civil proceedings against her employer, a private company, claiming arrears in those payments for 1997 – 1998.
7.  On 23 February 1998 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the third applicant 672.22 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment entered into force on 6 March 1998 and the enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.
8.  On 4 February 2004 the defendant company paid the applicant the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
9.  In 2001 the applicant sued a local welfare authority for arrears in welfare payments for her child for 1998 – 1999.
10.  On 4 August 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded RUR 2,158.10 in the applicant’s favour. This judgment entered into force on 15 August 2000 and a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
11.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 August 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
12.  In January – February 2004 the judgment of 4 August 2000 was paid in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the Voronezh Region.
5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 1999 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 1999.
6.  On 17 December 1999 the Novousmanskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 1,593.54 Russian roubles (RUR).
7.  On 17 March 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
8.  On 24 October 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 December 1999 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
9.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.